Bowen v. Kizer, 86-863
| Decision Date | 23 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-863,86-863 |
| Citation | 108 S.Ct. 1200,485 U.S. 386,99 L.Ed.2d 402 |
| Parties | Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitioner v. Kenneth KIZER, Director of California Department of Health Services, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
We granted the Secretary of Health and Human Services' petition for certiorari, 479 U.S. 1083, 107 S.Ct. 1282, 94 L.Ed.2d 141 (1987), in order to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir- cuit that the Secretary unlawfully rejected a California Medicaid plan amendment because an internal agency manual stating approval of the type of provision in question was a binding regulation, and because acceptance of the amendment was required by § 2373(c) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 1112, note following 42 U.S.C. § 1396a (1982 ed., Supp. III). Cubanski v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1421 (1986). After the case had been briefed and argued, Congress enacted § 4106 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330, which required the Secretary to approve the proposed California amendment, retroactively to the date of its proposal. The Secretary has complied with that requirement.
The parties agree that these developments have rendered the controversy moot. In accordance with our established practice, we vacate the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand with instructions to dismiss the suit. See Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 200, 204, 108 S.Ct. 523, 528, 531, 98 L.Ed.2d 529 (1988); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106-107, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
It is so ordered.
Justice KENNEDY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper Technologies Co. v. Dudas, 2008-1130.
...932 F.2d at 927 (quoting Cubanski v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir.1986), vacated as moot sub nom., Bowen v. Kizer, 485 U.S. 386, 108 S.Ct. 1200, 99 L.Ed.2d 402 (1988)). "In contrast, a rule which merely clarifies or explains existing law or regulations is `interpretative.'" Id. In ......
-
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg
...rights and obligations." Cubanski v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir.1986) vacated as moot, sub nom. Bowen v. Kizer, 485 U.S. 386, 108 S.Ct. 1200, 99 L.Ed.2d 402 (1988); see also Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 1717, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979) ("affecting individ......
-
Cascadia Wildlands Project v. U.S. Forest Service
...actual justiciable controversy exists is determined when the court acts, not when the action is commenced. Bowen v. Kizer, 485 U.S. 386, 387, 108 S.Ct. 1200, 99 L.Ed.2d 402 (1988) (per curium). Accordingly, a claim may become moot after an action is filed. Id. If the new regulations which r......
-
American Library Ass'n v. Barr
...process. In these circumstances, our appellate duty under the rule of Munsingwear is certain. See Bowen v. Kizer, 485 U.S. 386, 108 S.Ct. 1200, 99 L.Ed.2d 402 (1988) (per curiam); Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 707 (D.C.Cir.1990) (en banc). We therefore vacate the portion of the cou......
-
The Road to Bush v. Gore:1 the History of the Supreme Court's Use of the Per Curiam Opinion
...(1986). Both cases had been argued to the Court. 268. See, e.g.*, Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Ass'n, 490 U.S. 225 (1989); Bowen v. Kizer, 485 U.S. 386 (1988). Both cases had been argued to the Court. 269. See* Anderson v. Green, 513 U.S. 557 (1995). This case was argued to the Court. 270. ......